Stability and transferability of broadly trained phenology models in a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of phenology process-based models have been developed to simulate environmental influences on the timing of spring and autumn phenophases. Similar performances between different types of mechanistic models have raised questions about reliability of their predictions. To assess the biological relevance of phenology models, we used a seven-decade dataset of five species across 170 sites and 1700 m elevation in Switzerland. We evaluated nine leaf emergence and ten senescence models over time and space. We explored how optimal parameter values and influences vary, reflecting transitions in model aptitude and phenology responses to drivers. Leaf emergence models showed improved predictions at external sites over time, while emergence dates converged across Switzerland. In contrast, leaf senescence models often failed to outperform the null model predicting the mean date of training data and showed divergent performance trends. Trends in optimal parameters indicated species-specific responses to emergence drivers, with cold-climate suited species favouring earlier thresholds for warmth accumulation in spring, while the trends were opposite for warm-climate suited species, except for beech showing stable parameters likely due to strong photoperiod constraints. Warming increased the importance of chilling-related parameters for leaf emergence, while senescence parameter sensitivities remained stable. Spatial analyses revealed that complex models were less robust to training and validation at different elevations than simple models, and that phenological responses may vary non-linearly with elevation, likely due to local adaptations. Senescence models performed better with validation at high elevations, where climatic variables such as cooling temperatures play a large role, while predictions were more challenging at other elevations. These findings highlight the need for further refinement of process-based models to account for all driving influences on plant phenology, particularly for leaf senescence models. Our work demonstrates the potential for process-based modelling techniques to better understand phenology responses to climate change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".